This is an update on a post I wrote at the beginning of last year – Ten things every journalist should know in 2009. I still stand by all those points I made then so consider the following 10 to be an addendum.

1. How to monitor Twitter and other social media networks for breaking news or general conversations in your subject area using tools such as TweetDeck. Understand and use hashtags.

2. You are in control. Don’t become a slave to technology, make it your slave instead. You will need to develop strategies to cope with information overload – filter, filter, filter!

3. You are a curator. Like it or not, part of your role will eventually be to aggregate content (but not indiscriminately). You will need to gather, interpret and archive material from around the web using tools like Publish2, Delicious and StumbleUpon. As Publish2 puts it: “Help your readers get news from social media. More signal. Less noise.”

4. Your beat will be online and you will be the community builder. Creating communities and maintaining their attention will increasingly be down to the efforts of individual journalists; you may no longer be able to rely on your employer’s brand to attract reader loyalty in a fickle and rapidly changing online world (see 7).

5. Core journalistic skills are still crucial. You can acquire as many multimedia and programming skills as you want, but if you are unable to tell a story in an accurate and compelling way, no one will want to consume your content.

6. Journalism needs a business model. If you don’t understand business, especially the business you work for, then it’s time to wake up. The reality for most journalists is that they can no longer exist in a vacuum, as if what they do in their profession is somehow disconnected from the commercial enterprise that pays their wages (one side effect of journalists’ attempts to ‘professionalise’ themselves, according to Robert G Picard). That does not mean compromising journalistic integrity, or turning into solo entrepreneurs; rather it means gaining an understanding of the business they are in and playing a part in moving it forward.

As former Birmingham Post editor Marc Reeves said in his excellent speech to Warwick Business School last year: “You cannot be an editor in today’s media environment without also being a businessman. It might say editor on my business card, but really, I am in the business of making news profitable and budgets, targets and performance are as important to me as words and newsprint.”

OK, you may not be an editor yet but that is no excuse, and it is probably easier to innovate while you are still working on the coalface without managerial responsibilities. Plus, in some cases, your editor may be part of the problem.

7. You are your own brand – brand yourself online! I’m not talking bylines here – you need to build yourself an online persona, one that earns you a reputation of trustworthiness and one that allows you to build fruitful relationships with your readers and contacts. You can no longer necessarily rely on having a good reputation by proxy of association with your employer’s brand. And your reputation is no longer fleeting, as good as your last big story – there is an entire archive of your content building online that anyone can potentially access.

Obvious ways to do this: Twitter, Facebook, personal blogging, but you can also build a reputation by sharing what you are reading online using social bookmarking sites like Publish2 and delicious (see 3).

8. You need to collaborate! Mashable suggests seven ways news organisations could become more collaborative outside of their own organisations, but this could also mean working with other journalists in your own organisation on, for example, multimedia projects as MultimediaShooter suggests or hook up with other journalists from other publications as Adam Westbrook suggests to learn and share new ideas.

9. Stories do not have to end once they are published online. Don’t be afraid to revise and evolve a story or feature published online, but do it transparently – show the revisions. And don’t bury mistakes; the pressure to publish quickly can lead to mistakes but if you admit them honestly and openly you can only gain the respect of your readers.

10. Technology is unavoidable, but it is nothing to fear and anyone of any age can master the basics. If you do nothing else, set up a WordPress blog and experiment with different templates and plugins – I promise you will be amazed at what you can achieve and what you can learn in the process.

1. How to use Twitter to build communities, cover your beat, instigate and engage in conversations.

2. How to use RSS feeds to gather news and manage them using filtering techniques (basic or advanced).

3. That there is a difference between link journalism and ‘cut and paste’ journalism (aka plagiarism).

4. That your readers are smarter than you think. In fact, many are smarter than you – they know more than you do.

5. That churnalism is much easier to spot online. If you do this regularly, your readers are already on to you – merely re-writing press releases without bringing anything to the table no longer cuts it.

6. Google is your friend. But if you are not using advanced search techniques, you really have no idea what it is capable of.

7. You do not have to own, or even host, the technology to innovate in journalism and engage your readers. There is a plethora of free or cheap tools available online, so there is no excuse for not experimenting with them.

8. Multimedia for multimedia’s sake rarely works, and is often embarrassing. If you are going to do it, either do it well enough so it works as a standalone item or do it to complement your written coverage – for example, add a link to the full sound file of your interview with someone in your article, or a link to the video of someone’s entire speech at an event. The latter will enhance the transparency of your journalism too.Great tips and resources here and some useful tips on doing video on a budget.

9. How to write search engine friendly journalism. Old school thinking about headline writing, story structure etc no longer applies online and there is also more to learn about tagging, linking and categorisation. Sub-editors (if you still have them), editors and reporters all need to know how to do this stuff.

10. Learn more about privacy. You can find a lot of information about people online, especially via social networking sites, but think carefully about the consequences. And bear in mind that it cuts both ways, if you do not do it carefully,your online research could compromise your sources.

Organised by the Tullett Prebon, the show featured power and sail boats, dinghies, engines, electronics, deck equipment, charter holidays and sailing courses.

I was actually on board some of them.

What fascinated me most was the predator 108 special edition. It was one of the major boats launched at the occasion.

According to the boat company Sunseeker, it was built in a stunning custom metalic gold colour and boasts a sports flybridge deck with helm position, a highly costomised aft cockpit layout with wicker effect and built in seating and wetbar area, including a spacious foredeck with spa tub and built in sunlonger.

In short predator 108 is a ‘little paradise’ on its own.

The performance by the band of Her Majesty’s Royal Marines Collingwood at the launch of the Predator 108 was equally fascinating.

Although there were boats and other deck equipments that could be purchased with few thousands of pounds, I left the show with the believe that it was organised for the high and mighty in the society with extra pounds stashed away in the banks.

Let me leave you with some of the pictures I took, they may inspire you to take to sea.

One of the attractions at the show

More inside the Excel centre

Metre Yatch on display

However, the issue of clashes before during and after football matches seem to be gradually becoming a global phenomenon and threatening to take away the fun from the game.

A simple search in the Internet on football clashes presents tons of incidences. Below is a list of some:

• News – Devon – Bar damaged in football clashes .
• News – Oxfordshire – Five held after football clashes .
• News – Middle East – Hundreds hurt in Iranian football clashes .
• News – World: Europe – One dead in Italian football clashes .
• News – Merseyside – Officers hurt in football clashes .

You can also watch some clips of violence in football from you tube:

So what do you think should be done to stop football hooliganism and restore the glory of the ‘rounded leather’ game?

Carolyn Kury de Castillo, a reporter for CICT-TV (Global TV in Calgary). (Photo)Robert Thivierge Courtesy Wikimedia Commons

They are not having equal place with men in the media when it comes to representation as News makers, experts or even commentators.

If at all they appear in the media reports or programmes, then there is high probability that they will be portrayed in a lowly image as celebrities or victims of an abuse.

Equally, practicing female journalist tend to be ‘restricted’ to covering issues that have to do with their female folks, e.g fashion, society issues, hardly do you see women equally

But the point of contention is identifying the real cause of this under-representation and whether it is justified.

Impediments:

So what are the factors militating against women in getting to peak position in journalism profession?

Although there is an improvement in the number of women joining the journalism profession across the globe in recent years with a number of them holding senior positions in print and broadcast media, there is an indication that there is still imbalance in senior decision-making and policy-making position between women and men in the media profession.

Different reasons are given for the problem but I summarised them in some bullet points below:

• Management’s perception that women’s productivity decreases when they take on reproductive roles. In some countries, women are expected to play their traditional roles as wives and mothers and not work the hours that come with working in the media. Such pressure is also exerted on young women who are not encouraged to accept work challenges such as travelling to take up foreign assignments. The main objection to women taking up journalism as a profession in some countries is the late hours working involved in journalism and the fact that the job necessarily involves a lot of interaction with men!
• Some employers in media organizations/media enterprises are reluctant to provide benefits such as extended maternity leave and flexible time arrangements. This sometimes forces women to seek employment elsewhere where such benefits could be provided.
• Pigeonholing of women into covering only those “soft” beats that do not really count for the male decision-makers during promotion time.
• Lack of women role models or mentors.
• Sexual harassment in the work place.
• Lack of confidence on the part of some women especially in taking on leadership positions in media organizations/media enterprises.
• Ownership of numerous media organizations by men.
• Women’s lack of funds to invest in media businesses.

The culture in television industry of getting rid of older women and hiring younger looking ladies as casters also contributes to the imbalances between men and women when it comes to holding position of authority in media organizations.

Capt. Ken Barrett, head of the Navy Diversity Directorate, speaks with Channel 8 News anchor Beverly Kirk. Courtesy Wikimedia Commons

The BBC recently came under heavy criticism from UK equality minister Harriet Harman on this.

Ms Harman told the BBC’s World This Weekend female newsreaders had to be 10 years younger than male equivalents.

She told the BBC that: “It’s essentially an old-fashioned attitude that thinks you can’t value the experience and wisdom of an older woman.”

Action:

Women should be given equal opportunity to make contribution at different cadre of the profession. They have some experiences acquired from difficulties they face in life that will help in shaping and enriching the impact they will make if they become decision makers in the media

Women journalists and women groups should be in the vanguard of championing their course and speak out against the perceived marginalization in appointments to higher-ranking positions in journalism.

So I believe having more women in the position of authority can and will reshape the way women are portrayed in the media.

Ross whose annual pay is reported to be £6 million said in a statement today that he have had a wonderful time at the BBC and is not wishing to renegotiate his contract.

Many UK newspapers and broadcast media have been criticising or have offered platforms for critics of the BBC for splashing £6 million out of the license fee on a single star, while license fee payers face tough economic conditions.

Despite the fact that, he still has six months left before the expiration of his contracts, speculations have been on about his possible replacement.

Whoever is ‘lucky’ to get the slot should expect attention from lovers and critics of the BBC and the star about his ‘fat’ salary. 

Will he/she be as ‘good’ as Ross or even better; in that case critics of the corporation will be vindicated for crying wolf about his annual home take.

If he/she turns out to be less productive and ‘entertaining’ as Ross, then the corporation will hold its shoulders high to prove that it is justified in curving out license fee to the tune of £6 million to pay a single star. 

So let’s wait and see how it will all play out.

The story then went ahead to dominate the media coverage throughout the day and night, surpassing the snow that blanket the UK these days.

According to the BBC “two ex-Cabinet ministers called for a secret ballot of Labour MPs to decide on Mr Brown’s leadership.

“No ministers and only a handful of Labour MPs publicly supported the move.

“But the BBC has learnt plotters against Mr Brown felt six Cabinet ministers may back them in the “right circumstances”.

The UK PM had come under attack from opposition parties before, accusing him of incompetence as did Vincent Cable of the Liberal Democrat in 2007, and now the fire is burning from his inner chamber after escaping two previous attempt by his allies to topple him in the last two years.

Stalin to Mr Bean

It was November 2007, the then acting Liberal Democrat leader, Vincent Cable turned the PM to a laughing stock, by remarking during a parliament session that he had noted Mr Brown’s “remarkable transformation in the last few weeks from Stalin to Mr Bean”.

The Telegraph newspaper then remarked that “The day must soon dawn when Gordon Brown starts to wonder whether this country is worthy of him. Our great leader has declined at breathtaking speed from father of the nation, able to defend his grateful people against every peril from al-Qa’eda to bluetongue disease, into a laughing stock.”

I can recall watching the parliamentary session live on television and my first reaction was, this can never happen in my country. And if it does happen, then whoever make that remark, must face the consequences of his action, the least of which is to block him from getting re-election during the next poll.

Now Mr. Brown’s competency is being challenged by his party members, Former cabinet minsters Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon, who sent text messages to Labour MPs asking them to ballot on the desirability of the PM to lead Labour party to the next general election.

As this is not enough, The Independent news paper today released what it called the “poll of polls” which shows “the Conservatives on 40 per cent, Labour on 29 per cent and the Liberal Democrats on 19 per cent. These figures would give Mr Cameron an overall majority of 20 at a general election.”

Although some of  Brown’s cabinet ministers have come out publically to announce their support for his continued leadership, the incident has indeed strengthened the conviction that all is not well withing the Labour circle and that truly there are people withing the party who are not happy with Brown’s leadership.

Mother breastfeeding baby. Courtesy iCLIPART Images

The first thing that came to my mind was, could this be another ‘Flat earth news’? Thanks to Nick Davies, the author of a book with the same title.

In one of the book’s chapters, we were made to understand that some PR agencies hired by some companies producing certain products sometimes create pseudo groups as independent organisations to produce research to defend their sales.

He cited an example of the food industry in Europe which he said “…has been funding groups to protect its position against public and government alarm over obesity, junk food, misleading food labeling, diabetes and the advertising of fatty foods to children.

“British newspapers routinely carry reports and quotes on diet from the Social Issues Research Centre, the British Nutrition Foundation and the International Life Sciences Foundation and routinely fail to point out that all three have recieved significant funding variously from Cardbury Schweppes, Nestle, Kelloggs, the Diary Council, Kraft and the Sugar Bureau.”

Baby Formula

Back to the Daily Mail’s story. It reads: ” Women should forget what they have been told about the health benefits of breastfeeding, it was claimed today.

“A controversial new study has concluded that, contrary to the view of many experts, breast is not necessarily best for children in the first months of life.

“Professor Sven Carlsen, who led the Norwegian team, declared: ‘Baby formula is as good as breast milk.’”

Incidentally, all the reports about the study didn’t indicate who funded the study.

I quickly ‘googled’ Professor Sven Carlsen’s name and found out that he had participated in a research funded by a pharmaceutical company called Glaxo Wellcome AS.

However, this may not be a direct link, but it made me suspicious of the veracity of the research.

The choice is yours

The issue of superiority between breast-feeding and ‘bottle-feeding’ has been on for some times now and there is no indication that it will die down soon.

But some take the middle stand that using both methods to feed a child is the best as not all mothers can afford to breast feed their babies.

An article on safekids.co.uk discussed the advantages of both methods.

On Breastfeeding it noted that: “Not only is breast milk nutritionally superior to baby formula, breast fed babies typically experience less gassiness and spitting up than bottle fed babies.

“Additionally, mother’s milk provides babies with valuable antibodies not present in commercially prepared formula.

“Breastfed babies are less prone to respiratory and ear infections, asthma, allergies and diabetes than those who are bottle fed, and evidence suggests that breastfed babies are even at a reduced risk of cot death.”

As for the proponents of bottle-feeding, the article stated that “Not all mothers are able to breastfeed.

“Women who are HIV positive or have AIDS, as well as mothers who are undergoing chemotherapy treatments are not good candidates for breastfeeding.

“Also, some medications, both prescription and over-the-counter, make breast-feeding inadvisable.

“For these women, as well as those who simply prefer to bottle-feed, formula provides a balanced, nutrient rich diet for their baby’s first year of life.”

However, we shouldn’t forget the Chinese poisoned baby milk scandal, which led to the death of many innocent babies.

Therefore, it is up to you to decide which best suits you, breast milk or baby formula. As for me, I go for the breast milk.

Breast is NOT best: Mother’s milk no better than baby formula, scientists claim

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 5:34 PM on 06th January 2010

• Comments (125)
• Add to My Stories
• Return to

Taboo: Women who bottle fed their babies should not worry that they are doing anything wrong

Women should forget what they have been told about the health benefits of breastfeeding, it was claimed today.

A controversial new study has concluded that, contrary to the view of many experts, breast is not necessarily best for children in the first months of life.

Professor Sven Carlsen, who led the Norwegian team, declared: ‘Baby formula is as good as breast milk.’

What really affects the health of a growing infant is the hormone balance in the womb before birth, according to the research.

This in turn influences a woman’s ability to breast feed, resulting in a misleading association between breastfeeding and child health, it is claimed.

The only benefit from breastfeeding supported by genuine evidence is a ‘small IQ advantage’, said the scientists.

And even this was yet to be properly confirmed.

Prof Carlsen’s team reviewed data from more than 50 international studies looking at the relationship between breastfeeding and health.

Most concluded that the more children were breastfed, the healthier they were.

On the surface this was correct, said Prof Carlsen, from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim.

But he added: ‘Even if this is statistically true, it is not because of breastfeeding itself. There are very few studies that have examined the underlying controls on breastfeeding ability.’

The largest study on breastfeeding was conducted in Belarus and involved more than 17,000 women and children who were monitored for six years.

More…

• How a fry-up could help pregnant women boost their baby’s intelligence
• Eating fibre may NOT be so good for your stomach

It ‘cut the legs out from underneath most of the assertions that breastfeeding has health benefits’ said the scientists.

For example, the study found no evidence that breastfeeding reduced the risk of asthma and allergies in children.

Mental ability was the only area where a small benefit was seen.

‘It appears that children who are breastfed have a small IQ advantage,’ said Prof Carlsen.

‘But this needs to be confirmed in new, carefully planned and conducted studies.’

The Norwegian scientists’ own work pointed to links between levels of androgen male hormones in the wombs of pregnant women, the health of children, and breastfeeding.

‘Pregnant women who have higher levels of androgens breastfeed less,’ said Prof Carlsen.

‘Probably this is a direct effect of hormones that simply limit nursing ability by reducing milk production in the breast.’

A pregnant woman’s health affected hormones in her womb, which had knock-on effects on her unborn child, said the researchers.

Normally a certain amount of the androgen testosterone is converted to the female hormone oestrogen in the placenta, the vital organ that supplies oxygen and nutrients to the foetus and links mother and child.

This is an energy-intensive process, said Prof Carlsen. If the placenta is underpowered, some of the testosterone that should be converted remains unchanged and has an impact on both the unborn baby and its mother.

For the mother, this leads to reduced development of glandular tissue in the breasts so her ability to make milk is impaired.

Adverse effects on the child are believed to include an increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and the hormonal disorder polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in girls.

Breastfeeding is less common in younger women, smokers, women who have had the pregnancy condition pre-eclampsia, women who have low-birth weight or premature babies, women with PCOS, and when the child is a boy.

A number of misguided theories have been put forward to explain why these groups avoid breastfeeding, say the researchers. One claim is that the bond between a mother and her child is not as strong when the baby is a boy.

‘This is purest nonsense,’ said Prof Carlsen.

‘Boys are not less loved by their mothers than girls. We can blame biology here, not mothers. All these relationships can be explained by one and the same cause, namely the level of male hormones during pregnancy.

‘We find it very interesting that almost all of the factors previously shown to be associated with breastfeeding can be explained by changes in testosterone levels in the mother during pregnancy.’

He said it was wrong to pillory women who find it difficult to breastfeed.

Women who bottle fed their babies should not worry that they are doing anything wrong, and should not be intimidated by politically correct messages, he added.

‘Don’t let overzealous health professionals give you a guilty conscience,’ said Prof Carlsen.

‘There are many good reasons to breastfeed. But concern for the child’s health is not one of them. There is no reason why women who are struggling to breastfeed should have to go around feeling guilty, or think that they are giving their child a poor start in life if they can’t nurse. Baby formula is as good as breast milk.’

The strongest argument for encouraging mothers to breastfeed was environmental, said Prof Carlsen.

Breastfeeding avoided the environmental costs of producing bottles and infant formula, and the energy consumed sterilising bottles.

Nursing babies at the breast was also the right approach for developing countries, where economics, hygiene and lack of natural resources made breastfeeding the better option.

The research is published in the January edition of the journal Acta Obstestricia and Gynecologia Scandinavica.

Print this article

Read later

Email to a friend

Share this article:

• Digg it
• Del.icio.us
• Reddit
• Newsvine
• Nowpublic
• StumbleUpon
• Facebook
• MySpace
• Fark

Add your comments

Comments (125)

Here’s what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below, or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have not been moderated.

• Newest
• Oldest
• Best rated
• Worst rated

View all

I think the study has a lot of holes in it. Benefits to the child’s health include HEALTHY weight gain and antibodies from Mom to help fight off colds and such. I know first-hand as a daycare worker that breastfed babies do better when they are sick. Formula fed babies tend to be overweight. I am all for formula I know a lot of Moms have to work and can’t nurse and there is nothing wrong with that. There’s nothing wrong with not being comfortable with nursing. No one should feel guilty for it at all but you can’t deny that best is breast. Breastmilk has a better taste to it, it’s warm and gives baby and mom a chance to sit down and bond for 20 minutes. You are nurturing your child inside and out. How is that not better?

- Jennifer, Savannah, GA, 06/1/2010 19:39

Click to rate Rating   (0)

Report abuse

Agree completely! My now 15 yr old daughter was bottle-fed……….and despite lots of tut- tutting here in France, my sister-in-law’s 3 breast-fed children have been more sickly and ill then ever my daughter was!

- karen, haute savoie France, 06/1/2010 19:39

Click to rate Rating   (0)

Report abuse

I agree with this article. If you can do it, go for it, but if you can’t than you shouldn’t be made to feel guilty.

Personally I breastfed my first born (a boy) for 6 months enjoyed it, but due to the lack of sleep, which the health professionals do not tell you about as breastfed babies need to be fed frequently, I didn’t see how I would manage doing it again with my second (also a boy), Three years on, I don’t think there are any differences between them.

- S Khan, London, 06/1/2010 19:35

Click to rate Rating   (0)

Report abuse

It is whatever you want to do, whatever makes you happy and whatever nourishes the baby. Simple! I never breast fed any of my 3 and my mum never breast fed any of us. At the risk of sounding a little boastful, we are all smart, articulate, healthy etc. Why do some people always have to impose their beliefs on others. It is a free country after all.

- sophie, belfast, 06/1/2010 19:35

Click to rate Rating   (0)

Report abuse

I have two boys, one 19 months and one 3 months, and I wasn’t able to breatfeed either for longer than 6 weeks as I simply didn’t have enough food for them, despite trying everything (including eglinol on doctor’s prescription).Having spoken to many many mom’s about this, it seems it is not that uncommon for women to not have enough milk. To those who do and are able to breastfeed, well done. It is not easy. But for the many of us who do not produce enough milk (my youngest drinks over a litre a day), it is good to know that we are not hurting our babies (who we love more than life itself) by giving them formula. After all, they have to eat. To those women who have successfully breastfed, you’ve done well but please don’t be harsh on those of us who aren’t able to do so well.

- Just a mommy trying her best, Johannesburg, SA, 06/1/2010 19:32

Click to rate Rating   (0)

Report abuse

Oh, really? Em, a millennium of nursing mothers had it wrong, eh? Women who lived in caves had no access to bottles or formula, yet they were able to successfully nurse their babies. Ditto down the ages, except, of course, the New Age nuts who want to replace the perfect nutrients in breast milk with designer powders and rubber teats. Give me a break. Women’s breasts were designed for the purpose of providing nourishment to their babies. End of story.

- Maeve McFadden, San Diego, USA, 06/1/2010 19:26

I don't know who to credit for taking the pictures. But all the same, thank you both for decorating my window. (Inset: Denisa Morairu)

The story according to  Yong Wang is that Denisa sent a message to Bashir last night but got no feedback, and this is what happens to Bashir’s window today.

The second 'acomplice' (Young Wang)